Are you sitting for this? Texas governor signs 'Save Chick-fil-A' bill.

@hippyjoe1955 oh look, another ad hom.

@GoldenWorm replying in kind.

@hippyjoe1955 uh no. There were substantive points in there. The haha reads like you're proudly not listening.

@GoldenWorm He is ALWAYS proudly not listening or adding anything useful. Its his MO.

@GoldenWorm AGW is not substantive points. It is nonsense that serious people have shown to be false. You need to keep up with the science and stop drinking the kool aid.

@hippyjoe1955 <inserts clip of Colbert standing with 97 out of 100 climate scientists who have consensus that it does>

@GoldenWorm Yeah those fruit fly experts are really good at predicting the weather.

@hippyjoe1955 Geneticists aren't climate scientists and I didn't list them.

@GoldenWorm But they were counted amongst the 97%. 30,000 climate scientists denied that AGW was a thing. Did you take them into account?

@hippyjoe1955 https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[quote]Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.[/quote]

@Pherick Ah yes science. The practice of relying on the ignorance of experts. Too funny!!! The fact is that the raw data (not the fudged stuff) shows a slight cooling trend since 1998. However 1998 was not as warm as 1934. Nothing we have experienced is as warm as the times of the Vikings settling Greenland. Nor is it as warm as the Roman warm period where they were growing grapes in Northern England. Silly people don't know history and get pushed into panics all the time. Wise people laugh at the panic pushers. Let me guess you fell for Y2K too.

@hippyjoe1955 people like you are a danger to the rest of us. And hey, if vere wrong, everyone gets cleaned air.

@hippyjoe1955 LOL Too Funny. Feel free to post evidence of your cooling trends.

@Pherick Read the stats moron.

@hippyjoe1955 [image deleted]

@hippyjoe1955 post it.

@GoldenWorm He's a Religous nutjob troll!! Ignore him. ✌

@hippyjoe1955 What stats? You posted no stats.

@GoldenWorm Were you there when they were trying to panic everyone with the new ice age circa 1974? I was. Were you there when they were trying to panic everyone with acid rain around 1984? I was. How about the hole in the ozone scare of the late 1980s to 1990s? That was me again watching the panic. How about the big scare of Y2K? Yeah I simply set my computer's clock to a time before it was built and it worked just fine. Then I set it to the next millennium and it worked just fine. Then I set it to 1 minute to new years 2000 and watched as the seconds ticked down. The computer never missed a beat. Gullible people fall for panics all the time.

@Pherick Go find them yourself. Try Watts Up With That to start your search.

@hippyjoe1955 Kind of like falling for the second coming all the time? Sorry just had to.

@hippyjoe1955 Oh man. If only you were a real scientist, as you claim, and knew or understood how debate worked.

Always too funny to catch you in your lies.

@canusernamebemyusername Sorry you are talking to the wrong person about the second coming. My ancestors fell for it shortly after the Napoleonic wars. Learning from their mistakes I don't put much weight into predicting times and events. I am not a JW.

@Pherick I just pointed out a source of information and you say I don't understand science. Strange.

@hippyjoe1955 Shocking that you post a site like that.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

[quote]CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW[/quote]